From the Library: 100 Young Adult Books for the Feminist Reader

I second this comment. While war stories have traditionally been a boy's genre, I thought the tomorrow series and the Ellie chronicles were fantastic YA fiction for their nonstereotypical gender roles and the way the group discussed things until concensus or compromise was reached. A good model and a realistic approach.

I *LOVE* Ronia the Robber's Daughter-- and good call, it is a shame this list has no Robin McKinley or Diana Wynne Jones. On the whole, though, it's truly outstanding. I'm especially pleased that it includes both Tender Morsels by Margo Lanagan and Rampant by Diana Peterfreund, two recent books that I don't think received nearly the attention they deserved from readers.

It isn't only the rape culture that is troublesome but the tired old feminist stereotyping of girls who like to wear makeup and pretty clothing as being stupid and wrong.

For the Win has several complex and strong female characters in it, working to make their and their families lives better. I totally approve of it being on a feminist book list.

Although I think that Soulless is a wonderful book, I do not think it can be considered a YA book. I have never seen it listed as such.

I love Carriger's work too. I used to work in a bookshop and we kept her series in both the sci-fi/fantasy section and the YA section. I'm not entirely sure why since I myself hesitate to call it YA but it was rather popular with teens.

Let's get this straight: You put Tender Morsels on your list without having read it, then saw a handful of outraged comments appear. So you reread Tender Morsels, swiftly and with those comments uppermost in your mind, then decided they HAD to be right.

Did you talk to anyone in the non-outraged camp first? To those feminists who originally recommended it? Did you engage in a rigorous discussion at all? Or did you just cave?

Two requests:

1) Please remove my book Uglies from the list. It's an embarrassment to be on it.

2) Perhaps change your name to something more appropriate, like EasilyIntimidatedMedia. After all, the theme of Tender Morsels is that one must eventually leave a magical, fabricated safe haven for (sometimes brutal) reality. The theme of this blog would appear to be the exact opposite.

PS I haven't read the other two redacted books, but "triggering," really? Don't you think Uglies might be triggering for a cutter? Or a victim of bad plastic surgery? (Or an ugly kid? Or a pretty one?)

I cannot believe you took LIVING DEAD GIRL off the list. For some of us survivors of horrific sexual abuse as children, LIVING DEAD GIRL was a *relief* to read. It was such a relief to finally read a book that I recognized myself in. Where I didn't feel alone. Obviously, I got to grow up, but I never grew out of the horrific things that happened to me. But it makes me feel like a freak and an alien and I cried so hard, in such RELIEF to finally read a book that recognized MY experience. As a feminist and a woman, doesn't MY experience count too???? Thanks so much for marginalizing, alienating, and freakifying me again by saying this book is just too dangerous for women to read. You should be ASHAMED.

I'm a little ashamed of Bitch magazine right now. Those were some bold moves putting the books on the list, but taking them off just takes away from the integrity of the list as a whole. I'll admit that I read Tender Morsels, and it made me physically ill. People say things like that, but this literally made me sick to my stomach. However, it is about women dealing with the situations in their lives that seem insurmountable. Even though I wouldn't read it again, I would keep it on the list for any readers that may need to understand these issues. You don't have to like a book for it to be good. Have a little bit of conviction! Maybe this would be a good time to have 103 books?

Also, your spam filter is too strong.

The problem is that you announced your list as being "made up of 100 young adult novels that *every* feminist *should* add to the stack of books on their bedside table" (emphasis mine).

Now, a list is just a list. It's the opinion of one person or a group of people. Everyone who sees the list will have their own opinion of it as well. As you can see from the first set of comments (prior to talk of revisions), some people were pleased to see their favourite books on the list and others were disappointed that titles they love weren't included. I don't believe that the vast majority who viewed the list would have considered it as absolutely and irrevocably definitive. It was simply a list of *some* good books worthy of consideration.

However, by redacting these three titles, you have *explicitly* singled them out as being books that, by your own definition, *no* feminist should have on their beside table. This is not the same as leaving a book off the list in the first place; it is specifically labelling these particular books as not being "feminist-friendly". By extension, should the people who have read them and found it a rewarding experience have their feminist sensibilities questioned? (The original complainant, "scrumby", certainly seems to imply this: "you should be ashamed for putting it on the same list as Speak"; "I fear for your friends"; "This thing is just so bad on so many levels it boggles the mind that anyone actually liked it.")

Incidentally, I'd like to hear about the "certain instances" in which you would not hesitate to recommend the books and how these are radically different from the outlined purpose of this list -- "If you're looking to buy a book for your favorite teenage girl or just looking to cuddle up with a powerful story featuring teenage characters, look no further."

And please stop using "triggering" to back your decision. Firstly, in your original post explaining your decision to remove the books, you stated that only one of them (Living Dead Girl) was removed "because of its triggering nature". You provided different explanations for the other two books, explanations which have been challenged and critically analysed by many people here already. Secondly, as many people have also pointed out, there remain a lot of books still on the list containing subject matter of a "triggering nature" and a better way to handle such concerns would have been to flag books that might fall into this category rather than remove them entirely.

You know what? LIFE is triggering, full of unexpected moments where I have to deal with racism, sexism, and reminders of past moments of suffering. If I am going to remain alive, if I'm going to have any chance to live and grow, I'm going to have to deal.

I expect to run into books I'm not going to find pleasant on a list of books I haven't created myself. People who want to not ever have any sort of flashbacks can only expect not to have a real life. They shouldn't go online, watch the news, or go to a website for a magazine called "bitch" that has stories about women from all walks of life, experiencing the pain and beauty and the mundane parts of daily life.

This is a challenging list of books, with lots of different points of view. Any debate should be appreciated, but the items to be debated must be on the list.

You have to live in the world. Not YOUR world. THE world. Get strong. Deal. Live.

A lot of the books on your list deal with tough subject matter (Uglies, Make Lemonade, Luna, The Golden Compass) I have never read the novels that you took off (nor the ones you added to replace them), but I agree with the people who are saying that this act takes away any credibility that your list (and your website/magazine, etc) may have had. I didn't realize that we were still living in a time where a few comments meant a huge commotion! You should have told those people that your name is "bitchmedia" and if they wanted a list of young adult novels that dealt with uncontroversial things, they should go to "happyteenmediawherewedealwithnothingcontroversial".

So many things are triggering for rape victims. Being brushed up against on a subway train, walking down the street and seeing a very sexual ad campaign, watching a movie with a rough loves scene--all of these things can be triggering. Trust me, I'm one of those triggered victims. But censoring a list of literature to not include such titles lets rapists win. It tells victims that they don't deserve to have a story. It tells young women that their experiences that may keep them from living full lives IS something to be ashamed of.

Blatantly removing a title because it could be "triggering" doesn't give respect to the reader. Going into the book, they usually know what they're getting into. Laurie Halse Anderson's Speak, Sarah Dessen's Just Listen, Daisy Whitney's The Mockingbirds--all incredible titles that have "triggering" content but that tell a story that needs to be told. Too many young women never speak out, and you are part of that by censoring a title just because someone protested the "triggering" content. Abuse toward women is an epidemic and literature that brings it to light is to be commended, not condemned. Until you understand this, you probably shouldn't be labeling anything on this blog as "feminist."

I'm disappointed by the wishy washy nature of this list and how the magazine handled it. I commend the authors for stepping up for what they believe in when they could have easily looked the other way. Since I'm coming to this discussion late I'll skip over the same points people have already made.

In regards to triggering, and I hope you truly accept this comment in the spirit it is given, the word "bitch" is a trigger for me. Why? Because that is what my abusive stepfather called me when I began fighting back and standing up for myself in high school. From that moment on, he took sadistic joy in replacing my name with "The Bitch". I can't tell you how devalued I felt not only as a young woman but as a human being. Over the years, I've tried to find the positive in that word since so many now find it empowering, but I haven't succeeded.

However, I'm not demanding you change the name of your website because the word reminds me of the hell I went through growing up. You can name it whatever you want and that's your right no matter who it affects. Just like making this YA book list was your right no matter who agrees with the selections, but as a feminist magazine at least have the decency to defend why the books were listed in the first place. Not once did I see a staff member stand behind Sisters Red or the other two challenged books and fight for their right to be included. Part of feminism is having a voice and using it -- not running in the opposite direction at the first sign of disagreement. Its really disheartening to see that you allowed a couple of posters to squash that voice without a fight.

Maureen, you have pegged exactly why this hasty redaction has me so annoyed. It's just like watching a school library yank a book (though admittedly more honorable, because more open). And Kelsey's language about not *judging* the books, merely finding them inappropriate for this particular library, also sounds awfully familiar.

Thanks for making this trenchant point, Maureen, when I was being somewhat catty .

PS Neither of my previous posts are meant to trivialize triggering. I'm serious about Uglies. I get angry and/or sad mail from cutters (and others) all the time, but that's what challenging books do. See the dedication to Specials if you don't believe me.

"It mirrors EXACTLY the process by which book banners remove books from schools and libraries--namely, one person makes a comment, no one actually checks, book gets yanked."

Yes, I agree, it's exactly like a book banning! Now that these three books have been removed from the recommended reading list, neither I nor anyone else has easy access to these books. They've surely been pulled off the shelves just as quickly as their HTML has been backspaced out of existence. It's a shame that no young people will get a chance to read them and decide for themselves what they think about--

Wait, what's that? Oh my, I've just been told that nothing like that has happened at all. But that can't be right, let me just-- oh, well, would you look at that! I still have the option of checking these books out at the library, and there's been no news of schools pulling these books based on their removal from this RECOMMENDED READING LIST.

And to further my surprise, I don't see anyone calling for public burnings, or demanding these books not be read... In fact, it seems as though the only thing happening hear is that three books were taken off a RECOMMENDED READING LIST for not being feminist enough to qualfy.

This is NOT like when angry parents took Speak off the bookshelves, petitioned against it and called it pornography. This is a small group of people editing a RECOMMENDED READING LIST (and my constant emphasis of this fact is due to the startling number of people who seem to think it is anything more than this) to better reflect the values of that list.

"Ladies, feminist media should be held to the highest standard."

I'm glad we agree! Now I'm left wondering why you are objecting to the removal of three pieces of media (from a RECOMMENDED READING LIST) that clearly do not meet these standards. Books that contain victim-blaming (and not just at a character level, mind you, where it could be excused for a number of reasons, but on a meta level where the author is saying to the reader, shame on these girls!), and perpetuating rape culture are NOT amongst the highest standards of feminist media. Are they bad books? Not necessarily. They just don't meet the expectations to be put on the list, and when these flaws were pointed out they were replaced with books that did.

Comparing this editorializing to book banning and censorship devalues ACTUAL efforts against these problems. You are NOT helping the cause by making these false comparisons.

And shame on the people talking about triggers who apparently have no idea what they're talking about: "real life is a trigger/can be even worse than a book" (because I haven't heard that one a thousand times before!), "if I don't like a subject, I just don't read it" (that works well if you know beforehand what the book is about, or have adequate trigger warnings to help you decide)...

Because not recommending a book is EXACTLY the same as removing/limiting all access.
Are you completely unaware of what censorship means? How have you gone your entire life and become published without ever hearing of a dictionary?

I'm rather confused about how it's closed minded to feel a book with rape as revenge not handled in a particularly agreeable manner is not really for everyone.

If you honestly think it is for everyone then you're kind of very misinformed, or rather close minded yourself (gawd, all that sympathy nonsense- clearly people should just <i>get over</i> their deeply traumatic experiences.)

Just in case you weren't giving that impression enough with your quite frankly bizarre misunderstanding of how awards and recommendation lists work (i.e.: you don't get a say in who likes your work, you are not owed positive reviews, you generally don't get a say in you NOT getting nominated for an award. <strike>Unless of course you are pro-thought police and anti-free speech, in which case carry on your attempts to have these no doubt horrible cases of censorship removed, just don't expect people to listen.</strike>)

While I don't entirely agree with the action taken (applying warning would be just as valid- <strike>though people would still kick up a stink because baaaaaawwww censorship</strike>) I am curious; why are you and so many authors rocking up and giving their very best impression of a toddler not getting their way? I can understand disappointment, disagreement and such with changes, but seriously losing massive amounts of respect for a number of people here.

I'm coming late to the part of comments, but I wanted to reply to your sentiments on a happy ending, Lilli. I eschew most mainstream cinema for this reason precisely. I WANT my females REAL and that includes challenges and morally ambiguous situations and mistakes. We make such a point to demand humanistic realism from Hollywood and the media and raise our voices at hte lack of diversity in body sizes, races and roles. Yet when we do get someone who borders on anything questionably feminist (which, agreeing with you, is not synonymous with happy endings tied up in a bow ) we then become quick to rip back the label of "feminism" because they don't have some quixotic component that we feel is required to be "Empowering". Thanks for using your voice!!

This is not a list of self-affirming and optimistic books for the feminist reader, is it?

If it is, I am not sure my novel, The Disreputable History of Frankie Landau-Banks, belongs on it, either.

I assumed this was a list of books that addressed feminist issues in intelligent and moving ways. If that's what it is, I am honored to be on it.

Pulling books off because they invite argument and incite controversy -- that seems wrong-minded to me. Literature is meant to spark discussion and to be read and reread for multiple interpretations.

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but I just want to point out that:

- I am not some wannabe writer who is "dying" to get into the YA field.
- I am a successful Instructional Designer, which hey, actually means I do get to write for a living.

So please don't lump me into a group which I don't belong.

I agree with your first 2 paragraphs, and then you turn into a whiny baby. What qualifies a book as feminist. That should've been defined, and perhaps still can be.

"Strong books make strong girls."

This is quite possibly the best sentence I've read in a very long time.

you do realize that even talking about cutting and triggers is a trgigger.
so now, every single cutter who reads this list of books will instantly trigger.
right?
seriously

I live with a women who was abused, tortured, starved, beaten, has chronic pain from stage 4 endometriosis, disabled without being able to get disability, disowned by her parents, no money, no pain meds, no anti-anxiety meds.

so when she has NOTHING ELSE to turn to, she cuts to survive.
she literally has no choice.
so of course I understand the nature of triggers.

so how do we protect people who are cutters from triggers?

ban them from all social/internet/real world contact?
or do we get them real help and worry less about triggers?

/seriously, given that EVERYTHING is a trigger for some one, you would have to ban everything.
and how do you address REAL world problems without talking about them?
how do girls/people who are getting abused learn that they are not alone and that there IS HELP out there, if not by reading stories by people who are in the same shoes? or were in the same shoes and got help?

if not me, who?
if not now, when?

Rule # 1, never put anything on a list you haven't read or aren't willing to stand by to avoid scenes like this.

It makes no sense to remove anything but I am even more confused that If Living Dead Girl is removed yet, Sold, a novel about girl sold into prositution stays.

I loved Sold but there are people who probably believe it's is too adult for YA and would love to have it removed from this list. I wonder if such a person left a comment would there be four books removed.

I really liked Sisters Red. I saw The Book Smugglers critque after reading it . I never considered the points they talked about while I don't agree, I do think what they said is worth discussing. And this could've been the perfect place.

Rather then remove Sisters Red, Tender Morsel and The Living Dead Girl you should encourage people to be active readers and to think as they read. That's a great lesson for a reader to learn at an early age.

If it's not something you choose to get upset over, why the need to run over and assure a bunch of strangers that, gosh, you're a very <I>feminine</I> feminist and you would never do anything like burn a bra and what's with calling a magazine Bitch?

What a stupid choice for a hashtag. Now if we want to follow the debate we get to see all the people on twitter shouting about 'my girlfriend she don't respect me #bitchplease' as well as the debate! Hooray.

While I do like the books that were removed (have not read Tender Morsels, however) I am not going to complain about you disliking them.
But seriously!?! ("Living Dead Girl is straight-up torture porn.")
How is a story about a girl who is kidnapped and sexually abused by her kidnapper... STRAIGHT-UP TORTURE PORN?
Pornography's definition: creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.
How can sexual abuse be THAT?
I'm just curious.

<blockquote>This is a themed booklist; Bitch isn't censoring anything by not including books that don't live up to the theme.</blockquote>

Word. I agree with all of your post but especially this.

I've just been reading the thread and sighing.

But now I HAVE to reply.

There is NO RAPE in Sisters Red. Absolutely NONE. The "victim blaming" is NOT to rape victims. It can be paralleled to rape, but there is no actual rape. Just need to make sure this is clarified.

The scene in question in Sisters Red can be seen several different ways. I, personally, did not see any victim blaming while reading and only saw where it came from after reading the Book Smugglers review. And I still don't agree. I saw it as one of the character's own insecurities being projected. It's the reader's life and experiences that shape that scene.

I haven't read the other books, though I'm very interested in both, so I won't comment on them.

It's <b>not</b> a well made decision to remove books from a list <b>after</b> recklessly putting them on a list <b>before</b> ever reading them. It is the same thing as giving a patron a book with questionable content then actually reading the questionable content and taking it away from them because you don't think the patron can handle the content. Both of these techniques are horrible examples of Reader's Advisory. Both examples are similar to Book Banning and Censorship.

And if you are allowed to refer an author's work as "straight-up torture porn," why are you judging authors for having strong opinions and reactions of their own?

No one is raped in Sisters Red, and both sisters are given equal "screen time" and development-- neither is favored. And there's no apostrophe in "sisters." You're a librarian-- for fuck's sake, at least get the book title right.

Okay. So first of all, I think you should read Sisters Red before making preemptive opinions about it. This is exactly what book banners do, and it gets you nowhere. Also, you have the opinion that Tender Morsels is "boring". That's fine, but it's just that- an opinion. Many, many people have obviously read and enjoyed it, otherwise there wouldn't be this controversy. I have not read Living Dead Girl, so I will not say anything about that, though I would like to point out that the definition of "feminist" is definitely unclear, and what you may not see as feminist might be to someone else. I also don't understand why you lost respect for people who did not want to be associated with a group that removed three books in a process basically the same as book banning. (Note I did not say what they did was book banning, I'm just saying the way they decided to take the books off the list was the same, and for a magazine that calls itself feminist, disappointing. Bitch Magazine made this list. They should have had reasons for each book they decided to put on it, and they should have stood by those reasons.)

Wow.

I'm impressed. Tender Morsels: 448 pages. Sisters Red: 336 pages. Living Dead Girl: 176 pages. (from Amazon)

So that's what? 960 pages. 960 challenging, thought provoking pages, and a "couple" of you Hoover'd through them in three days. ("Scrumby" complained on 1/29; you caved on 2/1; subtract some time for "conversations" and, nope, make that 960 pages in two days. Yowza! Somebody got gold stars at Evelyn Wood.)

And given the timing, do you really expect anyone to believe you separated yourself from scrumby's complaints? That you read the books with a truly open mind, cleared of any bias? I know I couldn't have done so.

Is what you did censorship? No. It's editorialization. That's fair, and really, I wish people would learn the difference.

Is it cowardly? Oh, yeah. Not just because you pulled the books, but because:

1) You claim the removed books contain troublesome content, but from the comments it's clear that many (all?) of the books contain content someone would label troublesome. Do you really expect your readers not to see how transparent your lie is? Have you actually convinced yourself that people are buying this line of goods?

2) "we didn't call the books that we put on this list feminist, but instead recommended them to feminist readers." What a jaw dropping exercise in double-speak.

Bitch Magazine is feminist. Our list is "100 young adult novels that every feminist should add to the stack of books on their bedside table." Oh, but that doesn't mean the *books* are feminist. There's a difference, see?

Apparently, your definition of "feminist" must include the word "gullible".

3) The overwhelming number of respondents who are disappointed or even outraged, far outweigh the numbers who support your decision, and yet, you've dug in your heels, and haven't the spine to admit you screwed up.

Hey, making a mistake is the price of being human. Refusing to admit you've made a mistake, and trying to cover it up with blather worthy of Fox News? I'm sorry, but there's no other word for it but cowardly.

As my mother used to say, "If a hundred people tell you you're drunk, maybe you ought to sit down."

Seriously? You're pulling out the "Lurkers Support Us in E-mail" defense? I find it hard to believe that you re-read 1000 pages of book in two days, had a thoughtful conversation about it, and then up and decided reasonably and rationally to edit the list.

You put together a list of books you didn't personally read, and you caved the second a strong opinion wafted by. That's not what I would call feminist, nor is the absolute inability to evaluate your own complicity in this mess. I find it amazing that you only show a backbone when you're the one being called out.

Totally okay with you to throw Jackson Pearce, Elizabeth Scott and Margo Lanagan under the bus, but goddess forbid you take some responsibility for this fiasco and *apologize* for putting together a shoddy list to start with, and for caving to two comments and the "reams" of e-mail you got from The Mysterious Lurkers.

The least you can do is remove the authors from the list who now want nothing to do with this publication. To leave them on there against their wishes is a whole nother kind of triggering.

The confusion comes from no one understanding how a group of people can make a list and not do the right research before offering it up on the internet.

Everyone involved in the selection progress should have read the books before making a list. Everyone should have taken these issues seriously. All of these discussions that were held in private elsewhere should have been conducted prior to the list being published.

Why do only the emails matter to you when clearly plenty of people think that the books you removed were excellent? Why don't all opinions matter or get recognized as equally valid?

More importantly, how on earth can I, as a librarian, use this list or any other book-related list posted by Bitch in the future?

I can't trust that most of the books on this list would read carefully or read at all since you've made it clear that the three that were actually read by everyone were ultimately removed.

Your analogy is inaccurate. Suppose I were to email you a list of one hundred military science fiction titles. Someone else sees my list and tells me that three of those titles aren't military at all. I re-read the books and send you a second list of one hundred military science fiction titles. I tell you the names of the three titles I removed and explain that while those titles are science fiction and good books, the military elements weren't as prominent as I'd first believed, or represented the military in ways I believe to be pejorative.

At no point do I "give" you any books. At no point do I make decisions for you. At no point do I deceive you about the process or cast accusations that your stomach isn't strong enough to handle the descriptions of blood and gore.

I actually like the idea of trigger warnings on some posts, such as those dealing with rape or abuse. It gives people who know that they might have a problem with the content the choice to read or not too. I think if you are thin king about reading a book it is a good idea to read the inside cover or a review first (just to save money or the trip back to the library if nothing else). But I totally agree that it is absurd to use "triggering" as a reason for never doing posts about rape of abuse.

I think Bitch has the right to put which ever books they want on their list and take them off at any time for any reason but Bitch has proved over and over again that they can be easily manipulated by the use of feminist buzz words. "You are using __________ privilege to _____________ shame me." You can't win the game so why does Bitch even play? They should post what they want and let people say what they want.

How about rape victims need what THEY say they need? As I understood it, the original complaints came from people who had been raped and asked that the books be reconsidered because the way they dealt with the material was upsetting and/or not in keeping with the theme of the list.

Or did you just hear "OH GOD, THEY'RE HORRIBLE CENSORS" and jump into the fray?